Bill Oursler On Carrying That Weight
So the powers that be have decided to severely restrict the wrenched
excesses of Formula One technology in the name of survival induced cost
effectiveness. Good for them. Unfortunately, the masters of what they like to
describe as “the pinnacle” of motorsport sold their little patch of the
motorsport universe to the public on the basis of that it has the most
advanced technology for any racing series on the planet. Now, they want to
stress something completely different.
Are inlaws really outlaws ?
The question now is whether or not the public, which has suffered through
many seasons of lackluster competition because they were told they were
witnessing “the best and the brightest” products to come from the “best and
brightest” engineering minds to be found on the planet, will now accept this
new “restricted,” and far more mundane vision of F-1.
Advocates will no doubt suggest that the changes they have been forced to
make will produce a far more exciting spectacle than in the past; sort of like
Formula Ford championship on steroids. That’s wonderful. After telling us that
technology is out and competition back in, the fact is that the importance of
Formula One has been degraded. And it is which leads to the question of how
many will be willing to spend their time watching what amounts to upgraded,
“spec” like single seaters beating on each other for the two hundred odd miles
it takes to complete a Grand Prix. To put it another way, the idea of equality
in competition is great: however, the drastic measures needed to achieve it all
too often diminish the spectacle to the point where it is of little interest to all
but the participants themselves.
Snowball meets Napoleon
Indeed, as the novel “Animal Farm” made clear, the natural order of things is
that some barnyard inhabitants are always going to be “more equal” than
others. The idea of challenging “the best and the brightest” presumes at its
core that there are carbon based life forms that who think and operate at a
less high level than those who strive for total excellence. This notion of “rising
about the pack,” while rejected by many who feel we should “all be equal,” is
what has advanced mankind’s cause throughout eternity.
More importantly and clearly more specifically, it is what has led many of us
to watch Formula One at odd and often incontinent times of the day and night
despite its trademark tendencies to “follow the leader.” Now, in a seeming
panic, not unlike that of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, Formula
One has moved to reduce costs with an apparent lack of thought for the
possible consequences. No one argues the need for survival, but how about
leaving the quest for excellence alone and cutting back on the things that
aren’t seen, or aren’t important to the Grand Prix scene’s fan base, such as
the huge motorhomes or the bloated numbers of personnel that accompany
the F-1 tour around the world at such great expense.
Don’t get me wrong here, the factors threatening the Formula One gravy train
aren’t that important to me except, as I have said previously, in so far as they
provide an opportunity for sportscar racing to enlarge its own audience, if
those in charge make the right choices for the future of the enclosed
bodywork community. And, unfortunately, making intelligent decisions seems
to be difficult to do in a culture too long used to basing them on agendas
rather than common sense. Take for example the case of the recent and
historic Rolex 24 Grand Am season opener where the top four finishers were
separated by ten seconds after 24 hours; the top two crossing the line
.167th’s of a second apart. Here the description “Great stuff,” so often by one
well-known telecaster in his play by play coverage of the Rolex tour, comes
to mind. But right after that comes the question, “who cares?”
The problem for the Rolex-sponsored Grand Am sports car championship is
that it has sacrificed excellence and innovation for the sake of
competitiveness and cost containment; the regulations being deliberately
written so as to produce roughly the same package regardless of chassis or
engine manufacturer. No one can argue the fact that the Daytona Prototypes
are strong, safe and reliable. Nor, can there be any argument that they are
relatively cost effective for the participants. Yet, they are at best “oddly
shaped” machines whose attractiveness for the public can be measured by
the number of tickets they don’t sell and the less than stellar television
ratings they do generate, this despite a large number of highly talented and
recognizable drivers occupying their cockpits. In short, while the Grand Am’s
Rolex formula has consistently produced great racing, yet it has failed equally
consistently to generate the kind of enthusiasm needed to be successful in
the long term as a viable, public-oriented attraction.
Hopscotch with the flat earth society
At the other end of the scale are the organizers of Le Mans and its American
Le Mans Series offshoot. There the product is visually and technically
stimulating However it is also, particularly in the case of the ALMS, all too
often hampered by a focus somewhat off the mark when it comes to the
needs of its primary audience: the fans who pay their money to view it in
person or watch it on television. The best example of this can be found in the
relationship of the two prototype divisions created by the L’Automobile Club
de L’Ouest; the ACO decreeing that the headlining LMP1 category, where the
manufacturers play should, in no way be challenged or compromised by the
lesser LMP2 set. The question here can be put in a single word: “Why?” The
ACO’s answer is that since the manufacturers have invested so heavily in
technology, particularly the kind of “green” technology that will be the basis
for the automotive industry’s future, they shouldn’t have to share the spotlight
with the privateers of LMP2.
It isn’t a bad answer, at least at first glance. Yet, if this technology is so
good, why shouldn’t it be challenged? After all, if it is “the future, then ought it
not be able to survive on its own when it comes to squaring off against the
supposedly soon to e out of date technical parameters found in today’s
vehicles? In short, what is wrong with having a level field for both? If the
wizards of the manufacturers have done their jobs well, there should be no
fear that they will be embarrassed by the privately funded guys whose
resources are far less reaching.
Put it another way, why all the coddling? And, if this question is relevant for
the 24 Hours itself, it is even more so for the ALMS where the prototype field
in both LMP1 and LMP2 is thin. The idea of self preservation, not blind
adherence to the precepts of the ACO, ought to be the focus of the Don
Panoz owned series, which in 2009, by reducing the performance of its LMP2
division, has virtually eliminated the possibility of any chance of a battle
between them and their LMP1 opposite numbers for overall victory; a move
that will leave the ALMS with relatively little to talk about in terms of its
prototype community, forcing to rely on its GT2 production category to keep it
fan base interested.
Here, however, I must remind myself that I have the luxury of writing these
comments without any responsibility the risks that must be taken in their
implementation. I’m sure therefore that those who do carry this weight, see
things differently. After all, as the man says, “when you’re up to your ass in
alligators, it’s often difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain
the swamp.” In light of that I’m simply suggesting is that we in sportscar
racing take an objective look at our decisions, and not just blindly move
forward because of agenda-driven rationales that may not offer the best
solutions.
Bill Oursler, February 2009
|
